Benalwaleed Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this “mechanism.” But the fact is that the mechanism in question—known as natural selection—cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species. In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species—greyhounds or foxes, for instance.
insane_alien Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 no one ever said that natural selection produces new features because that is not what it does, natural selection merely ensures that good traits are passed on and bad traits are not. new traits come from mutations which either do nothing, are bad or very very rarely are good. try not to use strawmen(like attacking a false notion of the theory of evolution) as it is a logical fallacy and against the rules of this forum
Benalwaleed Posted June 23, 2009 Author Posted June 23, 2009 try not to use strawmen(like attacking a false notion of the theory of evolution) as it is a logical fallacy and against the rules of this forum......... I'm really sorry for that, But as you said it's a THEORY NoT A FACT... Beside...IT's a disscusion -1
Sisyphus Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Evolution is both theory and fact, but the strawman you put forward is neither. A strawman is when you falsely represent an opposing viewpoint in order to more easily discredit it. The theory of evolution does not say what you say it does, and so your arguments against that version are irrelevant to the real thing.
insane_alien Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 a theory is the highest level an explanation for something can rise to. gravity is a theory as well but you are not floating away. this is because it also fact. like evolution it has been observed.
Daecon Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 The "theory" of evolution is how people try to explain THE OBSERVED FACT of evolution. People like Lamarck also had their theories on how evolution worked, his theories were proven wrong. Darwin also had his theories on how the observed fact of evolution happened. He was more right than Lamarck, although even his theories have been developed and refined over the years. The current "theory" on how the observed fact of evolution actually happens is the best we have, and thus the most likely correct explanation for how the observed fact of evolution actually happens.
Mokele Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 As has been pointed out, mutation is what gives rise to new traits, and this in no way undermines the concept of evolution. Seriously, you need to take some time and learn what evolution actually is.
Daecon Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 I recommend reading the entries on this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB900
ydoaPs Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 I recommend reading the entries on this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB900 As well as their "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" page.
john5746 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species—greyhounds or foxes, for instance. Yet there are many species of rabbits and hares. You are expecting a rabbit to turn into a dog or some other very different animal in a blink of an eye. That would be magic. Evolution occurs over long periods of time, so we have difficulty grasping such changes.
CharonY Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 This is the third thread with an overall similar theme, btw.
dunsapy Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 try not to use strawmen(like attacking a false notion of the theory of evolution) as it is a logical fallacy and against the rules of this forum Actually evolution at least the way science is telling us, is also a fallacy. You have to assume , that one animal became, over time another. But really there is no proof of that. Because animals are similar in looks or some of their parts are similar, does not automatically mean they came from this one or that. Evolution is based on an idea that we do not see now, or has been seen in the past. Science should not be based on assumptions. As for transitional animals they are not found. What we see today are completed animals. There is a great variety in say humans or dogs etc., but we do not see dogs becoming cats. -1
JillSwift Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Actually evolution at least the way science is telling us, is also a fallacy. You have to assume , that one animal became, over time another. But really there is no proof of that.Yes, save for the fossil record, the DNA evidence, etc. Because animals are similar in looks or some of their parts are similar, does not automatically mean they came from this one or that.Evolution is based on an idea that we do not see now, or has been seen in the past. Science should not be based on assumptions. As for transitional animals they are not found. What we see today are completed animals. There is a great variety in say humans or dogs etc., but we do not see dogs becoming cats. Woo, one of my favorite straw-man arguments.
Moontanman Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 You gotta love them straw men but it's the way the creationist nuts argue against reality when they are misleading the masses with lies, deceit and bullshit. I guess that's all they know, when it comes to a discussion, then they go back to the believers and tell them how awful we are and how we won't let them in the discussion. Sad really.....
dunsapy Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Yes, save for the fossil record, the DNA evidence, etc. The fossil record shows complete animals that can survive. The question is how did they get to be complete? Where are the transitional animals? ( please don't say everything is transitional ) The transitional ones are the ones that have partial bones, bit of teeth etc., all this kind of transition that evolution says should be there. None of this is found in the fossil record. As for DNA this is also against the idea of evolution, because this is where the information comes from to make all of these parts? How did this instruction get in the DNA in the first place? It is not just mixing chemicals. Because there is are no instructions in the DNA from just mixing chemicals. Here is a little illustration, with four tubes of paint you can paint all the pictures in the world, but the tubes of paint don't mean anything until intelligence does the painting. DNA are those four tubes of paint. Edited October 2, 2009 by dunsapy
bascule Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 But the fact is that the mechanism in question—known as natural selection—cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species. [This is the point in your post where you'd ordinarily provide your reasoning. The reasoning behind your statement was omitted from your post] What happens when a particular organism happens upon a novel use for an existing characteristic, and this characteristic gives them a survival and/or reproductive advantage?
dunsapy Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 What happens when a particular organism happens upon a novel use for an existing characteristic, and this characteristic gives them a survival and/or reproductive advantage? I hope you don't mind me answering your post ( it was not directed at me). DNA tries to keep the life that it is ( say a human) in the center. What I mean by that, it tries to give a human all the parts and traits that humans have. There is great variety in humans tall to short, dark skin light skin etc. Mutations are usually considered bad. Like having 2 heads or four arms, or growths that are not supposed to be there. The point is that though, DNA allows for variety, but it keeps you a human. You do not become something else. There is no chimp to human, jump. That is what we see today, and why should today, be any different from earlier times? The fossil record supports this and so does DNA. -1
Mokele Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Dunsapy, go actually read something on evolution. Then come back. We're not going to waste time correcting your obvious errors.
dunsapy Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 The "theory" of evolution is how people try to explain THE OBSERVED FACT of evolution. People like Lamarck also had their theories on how evolution worked, his theories were proven wrong. Darwin also had his theories on how the observed fact of evolution happened. He was more right than Lamarck, although even his theories have been developed and refined over the years. The current "theory" on how the observed fact of evolution actually happens is the best we have, and thus the most likely correct explanation for how the observed fact of evolution actually happens. This is the fallacy of our age.
Sisyphus Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 dunsapy, you appear to have several basic misunderstandings about what the theory of evolution actually describes. I suggest you check this out, it's pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
dunsapy Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Dunsapy, go actually read something on evolution. Then come back. We're not going to waste time correcting your obvious errors. I know what evolution says. In the statements I made there were no errors. They were very general, but covered the idea completely. Where did you think I was in error? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeddunsapy, you appear to have several basic misunderstandings about what the theory of evolution actually describes. I suggest you check this out, it's pretty good: I have read a lot on evolution, but it really is a flawed idea. Actually from the evidence found it really is an impossible idea.
ydoaPs Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 I have read a lot on evolution, but it really is a flawed idea. Actually from the evidence found it really is an impossible idea. Explain?
Sisyphus Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 Reading what creationists say about evolution (or what they think "evolution" is) is not the same thing as reading about evolution.
BhavinB Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Here is a little illustration, with four tubes of paint you can paint all the pictures in the world, but the tubes of paint don't mean anything until intelligence does the painting. DNA are those four tubes of paint. If this analogy were to work, something would have to play the role of natural selection. I'd like to also point out obvious errors in your statements on DNA. It has been shown time and time again that our DNA is far from efficiently encoded. It has also been shown that our DNA is quite similar to that of many other animals. It has been shown that DNA modification in chicken eggs can cause the appearance of 'dinosaur like' qualities in the resulting fetus (such as scales and teeth). It has been shown that vertabrate fetuses have their information drawn from the same region of DNA during growth (always), no matter the vertebrate animal. These are all evidence FOR common ancestry. Coupled with the fossil record which clearly shows a trail of common ancestry and change, the case for evolution is RIDICULOUSLY STRONG. Your hand waving claim that there is no evidence merely means you are not a scientist, don't truly understand science and don't know (or want to know) the mountain of research which supports evolution. Edited October 2, 2009 by BhavinB
dunsapy Posted October 2, 2009 Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Explain? This is very general, so bare with me while I say a few broad statements. The first is that science doesn't know how life started!( I know this is not about evolution) But this is important. If science cannot prove that life started on it's own, then evolution as we know is a total myth. The reason is that , no matter, what was created, there is the question , how much life was created? All of it as in special creation of each type of animal, or just the start maybe as single cell? But then you have ask was all life pre programed in that first cell to create all the life we see. So the start to life, is very important. Science can not say that life started on it's own.( so they can't disprove creation) And if you look at what life is even as a single cell, there are many parts to a cell. So this evolution of a cell, the parts would have to evolve at the same time but in parallel to one another, in the same place, inside the cell, but these parts are needed to make a cell live. So that is a catch 22 situation, how can a cell live with out it's parts, but how can a cell evolve if it is not alive, because it needs completed parts to live. Also a cell doesn't know it has to survive, so how does it know how to divide, or reproduce? That is not a simple procedure. Science can only assume that it knew how to do this. Also the evidence that we know is that life comes from life there is nothing else, never has anyone seen anything different than that. Or found anything that would dispute that. Now , on evolution. If you forget all the evidence , on the start to life, evolution on it's own does not work. This first cell with or without DNA, has to become all life we see including plants and animals. In the fossil record there is no evidence of cells producing partial bits of bone, ( not completed bits, because that would take many tries to get something that is useful) Also the fact that complete systems of heart, lungs, muscles, veins, nerves, blood, and brain all have to be complete before anyone of the parts is useful. This is another catch22 situation. So if a heart started to form , why would that be kept if there is no blood , no muscles, etc, there to make these parts of any value? If anything you should see the millions of tries before any of these parts came about. But what you see in the fossil record is completed animals. ( with out the transitional ones) But what would you expect to find if things were created? Completed animals, with complete systems working. That is what there is evidence for. Sudden appearances , of life, in a completed form. The evidence supports creation it does not support evolution or non creation start to life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf this analogy were to work, something would have to play the role of natural selection. There is variety in animals. DNA allows that. If basketball players were the only ones that had a good life, eventually, the tendency for tall children and adults, would happen. This happens now, with isolated tribes of people. We see pygmy's and Zulu warriors. Extremes on height. But they are still all human. This what we see today. Edited October 2, 2009 by dunsapy Consecutive posts merged.
Recommended Posts